[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 149 (Friday, September 22, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14118-S14125]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the consideration of S. 1244.
  The bill will be stated by title.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1244) making appropriations for the government 
     of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable 
     in whole or in part against the revenues of said District for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other 
     purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to present the fiscal year 
1996 District of Columbia appropriations bill to the Senate. The bill 
presented is within the subcommittee's allocation and contains a 
Federal payment of $660 million, which is the authorized amount and the 
same amount as last year.
  I should make clear that the Federal payment is not a gift from the 
Federal Government to the local government, it is a payment in lieu of 
taxes. More than half of the District's property is untaxable to the 
local government. Of course all Federal property and buildings are 
exempt, but so are many other valuable properties in the city. In 
addition to foreign embassies and offices, also unavailable for tax 
purposes are facilities owned by entities with congressional charters. 
Properties such as the National Geographic Society, the International 
Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International Monetary 
Fund, the Inter-American Development Bank, and all of the hospitals and 
universities in the city are also exempt. The properties I just listed 
account for more than $1 billion in value that is not taxable to the 
District.
  In addition, the Congress restricts the city's taxing power in other 
ways. The District is prohibited by law from taxing income earned in 
the city by those who live in the suburbs. This is no small amount. The 
Census Bureau estimates that of the $33 billion earned annually by 
individuals in the District, $19 billion is earned by nonresidents--
over half--and therefore completely escapes District taxes.
  This past year many of the District's financial problems came to a 
head. Fiscal year 1994 ended with a record deficit of $335 million. In 
an unusually cooperative endeavor Members of the House and Senate 
worked together, along with the Office of Management and Budget, to 
craft legislation which established a five-member unpaid financial 
control board for the District. The board, formally known as the 
Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, has been 
working since June 1, and has made a significant contribution to the 
bill we are recommending to the Senate today.
  The bill before us represents the recommendations of the authority of 
the District's fiscal year 1996 budget. The authority is a powerful new 
player in the District's budget process. This authority must approve 
annual budgets and multiyear financial plans developed by the Mayor.
  This authority is designed to provide the kind of day-to-day and 
month-to-month oversight as well as fiscal expertise that the Congress 
is neither designed nor inclined to exercise. The authority has the 
power to require the city to change its budget estimates of both 
revenues and expenditures. If the estimates are unrealistic and the 
city does not make the necessary changes, 

[[Page S 14119]]
the authority can implement those changes on its own.
  Each year between now and fiscal year 1998, the District is permitted 
to submit and operate with an unbalanced budget, as long as it makes 
progress toward a balanced budget. This will give time to Congress and 
the local political leaders to address some of the issues concerning 
our relationship to the local government.
  On July 15, the authority made recommendations to the city council 
for changes in the budget that the District had adopted in May. On 
August 1, the council responded by adopting an amendment in their 
budget. Finally, on August 15, the authority submitted to Congress the 
District's response to their recommendations. The committee's bill is 
based upon these recommendations.
  The District has a long way to go to be a well-run, efficient, and 
financially stable city. With the control board in place, we have made 
important first steps.
  On September 14, the chairman of the authority, Dr. Andrew Brimmer, 
testified before our subcommittee that the authority is developing a 
positive, working relationship with city officials based on 
cooperation. At a recent budget summit, where authority representing 
the city officials questioned various agencies about their budget, Dr. 
Brimmer testified that the discussion focused on improving the city's 
services, accountability, and getting the information necessary for 
managers and decisionmakers.
  Those inquiries came from both the authority and the senior district 
officials. Of course, the proof will be in the doing, but the start is 
good. I am really pleased with the way they have been working.
  While the control board will be charged with overseeing the 
restoration of the District's financial health and improving its 
management effectiveness, the Congress must review the complete 
relationship with the local government. Its fiscal problems are not 
caused by lack of revenue. The city elects and spends more than $3 
billion of local revenue each year. That ought to be enough to operate 
this city.
  In order for the city to maintain its long-term financial health, we, 
the Congress and the Federal Government, must reevaluate our 
relationship with the city in a dispassionate discussion with the 
District residents and their elected representatives. When we began 
drafting the control board legislation, we asked the General Accounting 
Office to talk to people in other cities that have had similar 
financial difficulties and established similar boards about their 
experiences.
  One factor that everyone volunteered in our interviews was that the 
poor quality of public schools had exacerbated the middle-class flight 
from that city and was a major impediment in economic development. This 
is not just an economic development issue. Nationally, we are creating 
a generation of kids that cannot read or write properly.
  This is not just bad educational policy; it is a devastating 
implication for unemployment, welfare, and crime policy in the near 
future, and especially in our cities like Washington. Each kid that we 
do not teach to read is a lost asset to this Nation, and we cannot 
afford to let our national assets decay. The District is no exception. 
We do not need to recite all the statistics.
  Washington, DC, spends more per student than any other school 
district yet has the poorest student outcomes on standardized tests of 
any school district. We have old, high maintenance school buildings and 
too many of them. The problems of the District schools have been 
studied over and over and proposal after proposal has been made, but 
something happens between the commitment to reform and the 
implementation of a plan. It is time that we stop studying, analyzing, 
and strategizing, and start implementing and holding accountable those 
who are responsible for realizing set goals.
  Mr. President, the committee is recommending establishment of a 
commission to hold consensus around public school reform in the 
District. I emphasize consensus. The seven-member commission will be 
made up entirely of local citizens charged with working with the school 
board and the superintendent to develop and implement a reform plan. I 
emphasize working with the school board and the superintendent to 
develop and implement a reform plan.
  What we are providing is the structure for effecting reform, not 
dictating what the details of that reform should be. I want to 
emphasize that again. It is a structure for effecting reform, not 
dictating what the details of that reform should be.
  Some District leaders have reacted to this proposal with charges that 
it thwarts home rule and circumvents the citizens of the District, 
charges which I might add were made before having access to the entire 
proposal. Mr. President, to make these charges is to completely ignore 
and cast scorn on what Congress has been all about this last 9 months. 
The District of Columbia is in trouble fiscally, managerially, and I 
think most important, educationally in public schools.
  In difficult times, the city of Washington has no one to turn to but 
the Federal Government. We, the Congress, and the citizens of the 
District are partners in whatever happens to this city. We are partners 
in finding solutions to all these difficulties that Congress 
specifically and the Federal Government generally must be careful not 
to dictate or impose solutions on the citizens of the city. We need 
consensus.
  Another important charge to the commission and the board is to 
develop a capital investment plan for the needed school buildings and a 
separate funding mechanism to ensure that the work is done.
  Mr. President, on August 14, 1995, the superintendent received the 
report of the task force on education infrastructure for the 21st 
century. This report is an excellent description of the fiscal state of 
the public schools and needed steps to remedy the deficiencies. It sets 
out in plain terms the current condition of the public schools in this 
city.
  Mr. President, 62 percent of the District's public schools are over 
45 years old but only 8 of the 163 operating schools have ever had 
total renovations.
  There is an inability to accommodate educational programs and 
initiatives and technology in these buildings. Continuing from the 
report: ``There is no school building able to support a comprehensive 
vocational or career focus to prepare students for work in the 21st 
century.''
  That is totally intolerable and unacceptable. Based on the current 
number of schools and administrative buildings, the task force 
estimates that it will cost $1.2 billion to restore these buildings to 
a state of good repair and to modernize the schools and provide 
infrastructure to support for technology that is available and will be 
available.
  This price tag is overstated because the first priority is to 
determine how many school buildings will be needed for the future 
student enrollment. Once the decision is made on how many and in what 
locations school buildings are needed, a final cost estimate can be 
made.
  I am not just calling for the wholesale closure of school buildings. 
We must take into consideration the fiscal condition of the current 
inventory as well as answer questions as, What effect will the success 
of economic development programs have on enrollment? Or, What effect 
will the success of drop-out prevention programs have on the number of 
high schools needed?
  Currently, with the discussion on a number of needed school 
buildings, debate must begin on the funding mechanism. It is imperative 
that this mechanism be under the control of the District of Columbia 
financial responsibility authority and that any debt issue to outside 
the District's 14 percent of the local revenue cap on outstanding debt. 
We are right at that cap right now for all of the other infrastructure 
aspects of the city. There is no latitude in that, nor should it be 
used for the purposes of the school improvement program.
  This latter point is necessary due to the extensive deferred 
maintenance that exists in the system because the school fiscal 
infrastructure has not been maintained routinely. The schools' normal 
capital program cannot be expected to handle the high annual 
expenditures that will be needed over the next 10 years.
  In order for this new funding mechanism to be viable, it will require 
a separate revenue stream for debt service. 

[[Page S 14120]]
 All potential sources will be considered, including a small dedicated 
short-term reciprocal income tax to provide a stable and reliable 
source for debt service funds. Another obvious source is the cash flow 
generated by the sale to the surplus school property.
  These options should be explored by the control board, the board of 
education, District council, and the Mayor along with all other 
regional and District groups of interest. Local or Federal legislation 
should be developed that would facilitate creation of an appropriate 
funding mechanism and source of income.
  The bill also contains language that establishes a charter schools 
initiative for District public schools to improve and encourage 
community involvement. The subcommittee developed this initiative in 
cooperation with Senator Specter, who is very interested in this 
subject and his help was important to its inclusion.
  Charter schools offer great promise in reforming public education 
because they link the important factors of school-site autonomy, 
parental choice, regulatory flexibility, private sector initiative, 
accountability for student outcomes, and community participation. The 
committee believes that the autonomy of individual charter schools from 
external controls, such as those of the school district and union 
requirements, is essential for their success.
  To ensure charter schools' autonomy, the committee has defined them 
as public schools that operate with independence from the District of 
Columbia public schools as local education agencies. This definition in 
no way removes charter schools from the oversight of the District of 
Columbia public schools or other charter granting authorities. Unlike 
traditional public schools, these schools must meet the terms of their 
charters, including specified student outcomes. If not, their charters 
can be revoked or not renewed.

  I want to note the efforts of the current superintendent who has 
established schools-within-schools charters and enterprise schools 
within the public schools. These schools-within-schools share some of 
the same attributes of our proposed charter schools but are chosen by 
only one entity and are not as independent as they ought to be. It is 
our intention to build upon this good start, not reinvent the wheel.
  In closing, Mr. President, I thank my other colleagues on the 
subcommittee, our able ranking member, Senator Kohl, and my colleague 
on our side of the aisle, Senator Bennett, who have attended our 
hearings and taken a genuine interest in the work of the subcommittee. 
Finally, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the 
Senator from Oregon, Senator Hatfield, and our distinguished ranking 
member, the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, for the 
leadership and guidance we have received in bringing this bill before 
the Senate today.
  Mr. President, that concludes my formal presentation, I will be happy 
to answer any questions or consider any amendments that Senators may 
have. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl] is 
recognized.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished subcommittee 
chairman, Mr. Jeffords, for his hard work and dedication in bringing 
this measure to the Senate floor.
  The fiscal year 1996 District of Columbia appropriations bill is the 
result of a bipartisan effort. It cleared the Senate Appropriations 
Committee by a vote of 28 yeas to 0 nays.
  The bill includes a Federal payment of $660 million, which is the 
same as the President's budget request and the previous year's level.
  The bill also provides the overall budget for the District of 
Columbia. That budget has been developed and presented to the Congress 
by city officials and the Financial Responsibility and Management 
Assistance Authority for the District of Columbia, otherwise known as 
the Control Board. The Control Board was created earlier this year by 
the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Act of 
1995.
  The bill recommends a balanced budget for the District government. 
The funding levels recommended in the budget are the same as those 
recommended by the Control Board. The Board is expected to work with 
the Mayor and City Council to oversee and make further reforms in the 
District's budget, finances, and operation.
  The bill would also establish a seven-member Commission on Consensus 
Public School Reform. The Commission, which is strongly supported by 
the subcommittee chairman, will seek to develop reform goals and 
approve and oversee annual reform implementation plans for the school 
system.
  The bill would also establish procedures for public charter schools 
to open in the District, which would offer innovative educational 
approaches and opportunities to District students. In addition, the 
bill calls for city officials and the Control Board to develop options 
for consolidating and modernizing the public school infrastructure.
  Mr. President, I again commend the distinguished subcommittee 
chairman and urge the adoption of the bill.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] is 
recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, is the bill open to amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The bill is open to 
amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2768

   (Purpose: To improve order and discipline in District of Columbia 
                            Public Schools)

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2768.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 53, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
       (H) The Chief of the National Guard Bureau who shall be an 
     ex officio member.
       On page 66, strike line 15 and insert the following:

     SEC. 211. IMPROVING ORDER AND DISCIPLINE.

       (a) Dress Code.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than the first day of the 1996-
     1997 school year, the Commission shall develop and implement, 
     through the Board of Education and the Superintendent of 
     Schools, a uniform dress code for the District of Columbia 
     Public Schools.
       (2) Considerations.--The dress code--
       (A) shall include a prohibition of gang membership symbols;
       (B) shall take into account the relative costs of any 
     policy for each student; and
       (C) may include a requirement that students wear uniforms.
       (b) Community Service Requirement for Suspended Students.--
       (1) In general.--Any student suspended from classes at a 
     District of Columbia Public School who is required to serve 
     the suspension outside the school shall perform community 
     service for the period of suspension. The community service 
     required by this subsection shall be subject to rules and 
     regulations promulgated by the Mayor.
       (2) Effective date.--This subsection shall take effect 
     beginning on the first day of the 1996-1997 school year.

     SEC. 212. EXPIRATION DATE.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it is no secret that over the years the 
District of Columbia Public School System has suffered from a lack of 
discipline in the classroom. It appears that the situation is not 
improving and is probably deteriorating. The lack of discipline in a 
public school classroom by even one student can thwart the education 
process for the teacher and the students who want to learn. Mr. 
President, it is time to reclaim the classroom--for the teachers and 
for the serious students--from the disruption caused by problem 
students lacking in self-discipline and a desire to learn.
  I commend the distinguished Subcommittee Chairman, Mr. Jeffords. His 
is a thankless task. He has done a good job. One of his initiatives has 
been to propose the establishment of a seven-member Commission on 
Consensus Public School Reform. I will have more to say about that in a 
moment.
  Mr. President, the thrust of the amendment I am proposing builds upon 
the initiative of the Subcommittee Chairman. In the first place, it 
proposes that any student suspended from classes at a District of 
Columbia Public School, who is required to serve the suspension outside 
the school, shall 

[[Page S 14121]]
perform community service for the period of the suspension.
  Mr. President, often the misbehavior detected in the public school 
system is punished by a suspension; however, this suspension is very 
often looked upon as a vacation by the individual suspended. The thrust 
of my amendment is to see that any student that finds himself or 
herself suspended shall use that time to perform a community service. A 
community service required by my amendment would be subject to rules 
and regulations promulgated by the Mayor. Thus, the individual under 
suspension would not be rewarded by a week off of idle time, but would 
be required to make some contribution to the community during that 
time.
  Students who are expelled and then left to their own devices tend to 
become bored and then, as a result, may get into further trouble. 
Requiring them to perform service for the community benefits the 
community, provides supervision for the time the student is out of the 
classroom, and demonstrates to the student that job opportunities will 
likely be limited without the benefit of an education.
  A second part of my amendment is related to a dress code. I am 
advised that in the year since Long Beach, California, made uniforms 
mandatory for all elementary and secondary school students, the Long 
Beach School district has seen a 36-percent drop in school crime and a 
32-percent reduction in student suspensions. Many parents now spend a 
great deal of money on elaborate, fashion-conscious clothing ensembles, 
which cost far in excess of most uniforms. One reads newspaper articles 
about young people fighting and even murdering each other over articles 
of clothing, high-priced tennis shoes, and so forth. A dress code would 
keep obnoxious or inappropriate clothing out of the classroom, 
minimizing the differences between income levels among students, and 
removing the focus from clothes and gang symbols and placing it, 
instead, on scholarship and school activities.
  The amendment I am proposing would implement through the Board of 
Education and the Superintendent of Schools a uniform dress code for 
the District of Columbia Public Schools. The dress code would include a 
prohibition of gang membership symbols; it should take into account the 
relative cost of any policy for each student; and, it may even include 
a requirement that students wear uniforms. It does not require that, 
but this would be up to the District authorities. This modest proposal 
has yielded improvements in discipline in some of the jurisdictions in 
which it has been employed, and it appears to be a worthwhile effort.
  The third aspect of the amendment that I am proposing relates to the 
initiative of the Subcommittee Chairman to establish a Commission on 
Consensus Reform in the District of Columbia Public Schools, to create 
a consensus around reform goals and to oversee and monitor the 
implementation phase of the reforms. This Commission, according to the 
Subcommittee's legislative proposal, will consist of a member appointed 
by the Senate Majority Leader; a member appointed by the Speaker of the 
House; two members appointed by the President--one who should represent 
the local business community and one who is a teacher within the 
District of Columbia public schools. Also, the President of the 
District of Columbia Congress of Parents and Teachers and the President 
of the District of Columbia Board of Education, as well as the 
Superintendent of Public Schools of the District of Columbia would be 
members of the Commission. The Mayor and Council Chairman would each 
name one non-voting, ex-officio member. The amendment that I am 
proposing would add the Chief of the National Guard Bureau as an ex-
officio member.
  Mr. President, for the past two years, the National Guard has been 
directly involved in youth programs throughout the United States. 
During this time, the National Guard has had a direct and positive 
impact on ``at-risk'' youth in over thirty states and territories 
through its sponsorship of five separate youth programs. I am told that 
all of these programs have been a success. With this in mind, I am 
recommending that the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, Lieutenant 
General Edward D. Baca, be an ex-officio member. The purpose would be 
to increase National Guard participation in the District of Columbia 
Public Schools, so that a number of new and positive programs can be 
pursued, which will tend to promote discipline in the District's 
schools and which will assist ``at-risk'' youth. The National Guard is 
an organization comprised of the local interested citizenry. They have 
proven themselves to be dedicated professionals, who have displayed 
time and again their commitment not only to the national defense, but 
to the community as well.
  In summary, Mr. President, I am proposing an amendment that would 
initiate a program of community service for suspended students. It 
would also propose a dress code and would strengthen the initiative of 
the Subcommittee Chairman, by making the Chief of the National Guard 
Bureau an ex-officio member of the Commission on consensus reform in 
the District of Columbia public schools.
  Discipline is a problem in classrooms all across America. Students 
cannot learn and teachers cannot teach when the classroom is disrupted 
by disorder, and, in many cases, even by fear of violence.
  Jurisdictions around the country are trying to craft new approaches 
to curb classroom violence and restore sanity to our institutions of 
learning. New approaches must be tried. I believe that the steps 
proposed in my amendment may enable the District's schools to get a 
handle on some of the violence and disruptive behavior which are all 
too common in our Nation's classrooms.
  Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 2769 to Amendment No. 2768

(Purpose: To limit the amendment to 2 school years in order to evaluate 
                    the effectiveness of amendment)

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send an amendment in the second degree to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2769 to amendment No. 2768.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 2, after line 25 insert the following:
       (c) Expiration Date.--This section and the membership 
     provided in section 202(a)(2)(H) shall expire on the last day 
     of the 1997-1998 school year.
       (d) Report.--The Commission shall study the effectiveness 
     of the policies implemented pursuant to this section in 
     improving order and discipline in schools and report its 
     findings to the appropriate committees of Congress 60 days 
     before the last day of the 1997-1998 school year.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the second-degree amendment makes this a 
pilot program. It very well may be instructive and helpful for the rest 
of the country to have a pilot program here in the District of 
Columbia. This would be a 2-year pilot program and would require a 
report to the Committee of Congress after a 2-year period on the 
effected school discipline resulting from the initiatives embodied in 
the amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the second-degree 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank both managers. I have discussed this 
measure with both the majority and minority managers. They have been 
very careful in their study of the amendment. They will speak for 
themselves in regard to it. But I do appreciate their cooperation and 
courtesy, which are characteristic of both of them.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], is 
recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to commend the senior Senator 

[[Page S 14122]]
  from West Virginia for what I think is an excellent suggestion as to 
how we can help the District of Columbia find some of the answers that 
have been lacking in our educational system in this country.
  I think the pilot program to take care of those who get turned out of 
the school system is an excellent one. One of the greatest problems we 
have in the city of Washington and the cities throughout the country is 
kids that are dropping out and those that leave involuntarily. At the 
same time nationally, we are cutting back on the number of young people 
that are being brought into the military, and often those young people 
who have that problem have found that the military has helped them 
greatly in their ability to straighten their lives out and to get back 
into the school systems and get an education.
  I, therefore, am willing to accept both the second-degree amendment 
and the original amendment on this side of the aisle.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished manager of the 
bill for his comments in support of the amendment and for his 
willingness to accept the amendment.
  Mr. KOHL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl] is 
recognized.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I must reluctantly object to the amendment 
offered by my distinguished colleague from West Virginia. While I 
believe this amendment has many fine parts to it, and it certainly is 
well-intentioned, I believe that it would interfere with the 
development of a cooperative relationship between the Congress and the 
District.
  I have consistently supported the principle of home rule, and I 
continue to feel that it is a very important objective.
  I do not intend to debate my distinguished colleague. But I do feel 
it necessary to lodge my objection. I hope at some point that we will 
have a rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I know there is a desire to stack votes 
so that Members will not be interrupted in their committee meetings. I 
suggest at this time that this amendment be set aside so that the 
leaders can meet and give us a suggestion as to how we can proceed. I 
believe there may be one other vote on an amendment. The other 
amendments, I believe, will be accepted.
  So, at this time, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set 
aside temporarily.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2770

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on tax cuts and Medicare)

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2770.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the suspension of the 
reading of the amendment?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I object to suspending the reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to read the amendment.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, add the following new section:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON BUDGET PRIORITIES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
     1996 (H.Con.Res. 67) calls for $245 billion in tax reductions 
     and $270 billion in projected spending reductions from 
     Medicare;
       (2) reducing projected Medicare spending by $270 billion 
     could substantially increase out-of-pocket health care costs 
     for senior citizens, reduce the quality of care available to 
     Medicare beneficiaries and threaten the financial health of 
     some health care providers, especially in rural areas;
       (3) seventy-five percent of Medicare beneficiaries have 
     annual incomes of less than $25,000;
       (4) most of the tax cuts in the tax bill passed by the 
     House of Representatives (H.R. 1215) go to families making 
     over $100,000 per year, according to the office of Tax 
     Analysis of the United States Department of the Treasury.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the Committee on Finance and the Senate should approve 
     no tax legislation which reduces taxes for those making over 
     $101,000 per year; and
       (2) the savings from limiting any tax reductions in this 
     way should be used to reduce any cuts in projected Medicare 
     spending.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside for the sole purpose of considering the 
following amendments: An amendment by Senator Inhofe, an amendment by 
Senator Dole and myself, an amendment by Senator Bingaman, and Senator 
Boxer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. After those are taken care of, we would return to the 
status quo.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2771

  Mr. INHOFE. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2771:

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place insert the following: ``None of 
     the funds provided in this Act may be used directly or 
     indirectly for the renovation of the property located at 227 
     7th Street Southeast (commonly known as Eastern Market), 
     except that funds provided in this Act may be used for the 
     regular maintenance and upkeep of the current structure and 
     grounds located at such property.''

  Mr. INHOFE. I asked the clerk to go ahead and read it in its entirety 
so people could understand that this is simply a one-sentence, very 
simple, straightforward amendment, one that I have had before this 
body, successfully passed by the other body, on numerous occasions.
  We have a very unique institution not far from the Capitol known as 
the Eastern Market. The Eastern Market has a unique type of a character 
of its own. And for a number of years, there have been notions trotting 
around that it should be renovated and contracted out to various 
people, against the wishes certainly of everyone I have ever talked to. 
The neighborhood associations want to keep it as it is and the same 
vendors who have been in there, not for years, but for decades.
  So, this would preclude, and it would be clearly the intent--I want 
the Record to reflect this--that no funds directly or indirectly could 
be used for renovation or for construction or for changing the 
character of this institution; in other words, not using local funds to 
be replaced with Federal funds. I think it is something we have dealt 
with every year.
  I will respond to any questions.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Oklahoma 
would yield to me for a question.
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes. I would be happy to.
  Mr. DORGAN. My understanding is that--I ask if it is correct--the 
Senator from Oklahoma is attempting to prevent the use of funds to 
essentially 

[[Page S 14123]]
come in and raze the Eastern Market and create a new gasoline station 
with 26 pumps and 1 person working there, or for that matter a motel or 
an office complex.
  I very much support what the Senator is doing. I supported him when 
he did it in the House of Representatives. The Eastern Market, for 
those who have never seen it, is a very unique place. It is a market 
where individuals come and set up fruit stands and sell fruits and 
vegetables, and they sell fresh meats over there.
  It is a wonderful neighborhood magnet, unique in character. It has 
been there for many, many years. And I know a lot of people think 
progress is knocking all those things down and paving it all over and 
building something bright and shiny. Boy, I will tell you, it would not 
be progress, in my judgment, to see the Eastern Market destroyed in 
this town. It is a wonderful, wonderful thing.
  I think the Senator's amendment makes a great deal of sense, and I 
supported him previously on it. I compliment him on it.
  Is it the case that the Senator is simply trying to prevent the 
razing of the Eastern Market in one form or another and trying to 
preserve it in this town?
  Mr. INHOFE. Either razing it or transforming it. It would lose its 
character that it has had for the last 150 years. That is correct.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I am prepared to accept the amendment for this side.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, we are also prepared to accept the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2771) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2772

          (Purpose: Making a technical correction to the bill)

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2772.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 2 at line 17: Strike ``$52,070,000'' and insert 
     ``$52,000,000.''

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this is a technical amendment to bring 
the printed bill into compliance with the committee's recommendations 
and the tables in the back of the committee report. The amendment 
eliminates $70,000 that was not part of the committee's recommended 
amount.
  I believe this amendment has the support of the Democratic floor 
manager.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. KOHL. We have no debate on the amendment. We are prepared to 
accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2772) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2773

 (Purpose: To make a technical change to the membership provisions of 
 the Commission on Consensus Reform in the District of Columbia Public 
                                Schools)

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl], for himself and Mr. 
     Jeffords, proposes an amendment numbered 2773.

  Mr. KOHL. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 52, strike lines 13 through 16 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(A) 1 member to be appointed by the President chosen from 
     a list of 3 proposed members submitted by the Majority Leader 
     of the Senate;
       ``(B) 1 member to be appointed by the President chosen from 
     a list of 3 proposed members submitted by the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives;''.

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, this amendment is a technical amendment to 
remove a possible constitutional challenge to the Commission on 
Consensus Reform in the D.C. public schools. The amendment provides 
that the President shall appoint two of the commission members from a 
list provided by the majority leader of the Senate and the Speaker of 
the House.
  There is a constitutional question whether these congressional 
leaders could directly appoint members of the commission. This 
amendment cures that potential problem.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we have no objection to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2773) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2774

 (Purpose: To reduce the energy costs of Federal facilities for which 
                funds are made available under this Act)

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senator Bingaman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl], for Mr. Bingaman, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2774.

  Mr. KOHL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . ENERGY SAVINGS AT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FACILITIES.

       (a) Reduction in Facilities Energy Costs.--
       (1) In general.--The head of each agency of the District of 
     Columbia for which funds are made available under this Act 
     shall--
       (A) take all actions necessary to achieve during fiscal 
     year 1996 a 5 percent reduction, from fiscal year 1995 
     levels, in the energy costs of the facilities used by the 
     agency; or
       (B) enter into a sufficient number of energy savings 
     performance contracts with private sector energy service 
     companies under title VIII of the National Energy 
     Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8287 et seq.) to achieve 
     during fiscal year 1996 at least a 5 percent reduction, from 
     fiscal year 1995 levels, in the energy use of the facilities 
     used by the agency.
       (2) Goal.--The activities described in paragraph (1) should 
     be a key component of agency programs that will by the year 
     2000 result in a 20 percent reduction, from fiscal year 1985 
     levels, in the energy use of the facilities used by the 
     agency, as required by section 543 of the National Energy 
     Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8253).
       (b) Use of Cost Savings.--An amount equal to the amount of 
     cost savings realized by an agency under subsection (a) shall 
     remain available for obligation through the end of fiscal 
     year 2000, without further authorization or appropriation, as 
     follows:
       (1) Conservation measures.--Fifty percent of the amount 
     shall remain available for the implementation of additional 
     energy conservation measures and for water conservation 
     measures at such facilities used by the agency as are 
     designated by the head of the agency.
       (2) Other purposes.--Fifty percent of the amount shall 
     remain available for use by the agency for such purposes as 
     are designated by the head of the agency, consistent with 
     applicable law.
       (c) Reports.--
       (1) By agency heads.--The head of each agency for which 
     funds are made available under this Act shall include in each 
     report of the agency to the Secretary of Energy under section 
     548(a) of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 
     U.S.C. 8258(a)) a description of the results of the 
     activities carried out under subsection (a) and 
     recommendations concerning how to further reduce energy costs 
     and energy consumption in the future.
       (2) By secretary of energy.--The reports required under 
     paragraph (1) shall be included in the annual reports 
     required to be submitted to Congress by the Secretary of 
     Energy under section 548(b) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 8258(b)).
       (3) Contents.--With respect to the period since the date of 
     the preceding report, a report under paragraph (1) or (2) 
     shall--
       (A) specify the total energy costs of the facilities used 
     by the agency;
       (B) identify the reductions achieved;
       (C) specify the actions that resulted in the reductions;
       (D) with respect to the procurement procedures of the 
     agency, specify what actions have been taken to--
       (i) implement the procurement authorities provided by 
     subsections (a) and (c) of section 546 of the National Energy 
     Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8256); and
       (ii) incorporate directly, or by reference, the 
     requirements of the regulations issued by the Secretary of 
     Energy under title VIII of the Act (42 U.S.C. 8287 et seq.); 
     and
       (E) specify--

[[Page S 14124]]

       (i) the actions taken by the agency to achieve the goal 
     specified in subsection (a)(2);
       (ii) the procurement procedures and methods used by the 
     agency under section 546(a)(2) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 
     8256(a)(2)); and
       (iii) the number of energy savings performance contracts 
     entered into by the agency under title VIII of the Act (42 
     U.S.C. 8257 et seq.).


                           energy efficiency

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the two floor 
managers of the bill, the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Senator 
Jeffords, and the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, 
and their staff, for their excellent and efficient management of the 
Fiscal Year 1996 Appropriations Act for the District of Columbia.
  I would like to take a few moments to discuss an amendment I am 
offering on this appropriations bill. My amendment encourages agencies 
funded under the bill to become more energy efficient and directs them 
to reduce facility energy costs by 5 percent. The agencies will report 
to the Congress at the end of the year on their efforts to conserve 
energy and will make recommendations for further conservation efforts. 
I have offered this amendment to every appropriations bill that has 
come before the Senate this year, and it has been accepted to each one.
  I believe this is a commonsense amendment: the Federal Government 
spends nearly $4 billion annually to heat, cool, and power its 500,000 
buildings. The office technology assistance and the alliance to save 
energy, a nonprofit group which I chair with Senator Jeffords, estimate 
that Federal agencies could save $1 billion annually if they would make 
an effort to become more energy efficient and conserve energy.
  Mr. President, I hope this amendment will encourage agencies to use 
new energy savings technologies when making building improvements in 
insulation, building controls, lighting, heating, and air-conditioning. 
The Department of Energy has made available for Governmentwide agency 
use streamlined energy saving performance contracts procedures, modeled 
after private sector initiatives. Unfortunately, most agencies have 
made little progress in this area. This amendment is an attempt to get 
Federal agencies to devote more attention to energy efficiency, with 
the goal of lowering overall costs and conserving energy.
  As I mentioned, Mr. President, this amendment has been accepted to 
every appropriations bill the Senate has passed this year. I ask that 
my colleagues support it.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, this amendment that I am offering on behalf 
of Senator Bingaman is intended to reduce the energy costs of the 
Federal facilities for which funds are made available under this act. 
This amendment has been attached to nearly all of the other 
appropriations bills and reemphasizes the energy conservation 
requirements mandated under the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
  I understand that there is no objection on the other side of the 
aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we have no objection to the amendment. 
We believe it is a good amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2774) was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask the managers if they have any 
further business pending, or may I at this time offer my amendment?
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the unanimous-consent request that we 
have allows the Senator to offer her amendment at this time provided 
that she does not intend to require a vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is correct.


                           Amendment No. 2775

 (Purpose: To provide that Members of Congress and the President shall 
            not be paid during Federal Government shutdowns)

  Mrs. BOXER. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration. I send it up on behalf of Mr. Daschle, Mr. Dole, Mr. 
Bumpers, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. Bryan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for herself, Mr. 
     Daschle, Mr. Dole, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Feingold, and 
     Mr. Bryan, proposes an amendment numbered 2775.

  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC.   . PAY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT DURING 
                   GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWNS.

       (a) In General.--Members of Congress and the President 
     shall not receive basic pay for any period in which--
       (1) there is more than a 24 hour lapse in appropriations 
     for any Federal agency or department as a result of a failure 
     to enact a regular appropriations bill or continuing 
     resolution; or
       (2) the Federal Government is unable to make payments or 
     meet obligations because the public debt limit under section 
     3101 of title 31, United States Code has been reached.
       (b) Retroactive Pay Prohibited.--No pay forfeited in 
     accordance with subsection (a) may be paid retroactively.

  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the amendment I have just sent to the desk 
would stop the pay for Members of Congress and the President during any 
period in which the Government fails to meet its obligations because of 
our failure to enact a budget. President Clinton supports this 
amendment.
  Americans are being warned every day that we may come to a train 
wreck over the budget. If we fail to enact appropriations bills by the 
end of the fiscal year or if the debt limit ceiling is reached, the 
Government will stop paying its bills and its debts. Small business 
people holding Government contracts, senior citizens with questions 
about their Medicare coverage, even major financial institutions 
holding Government securities would be severely impacted by that so-
called train wreck.
  Certainly there are major differences among Members of Congress and 
the President over what our national priorities should be. Yes, we have 
a Democratic President and a Republican Congress. But we were elected 
to work together, Mr. President. And I believe if we fail to do that, 
the most basic job we are sent here to do, then we should pay a price.
  The way this amendment would work is simple. If any part of the 
Government shuts down because of a lapse in appropriations for any 
Federal department or agency, or there is a shutdown because the debt 
ceiling has been reached, Members of Congress and the President will 
not get paid.
  Mr. President, some here have raised legitimate constitutional 
questions regarding this amendment. But I think the amendment is 
constitutional. I think it sends an important message to the people 
across the country that we understand that we are paid to do our jobs 
fully.
  Today, the House Speaker threatened to take the Nation into default 
saying, and I quote him, ``I do not care what the price is.'' Mr. 
President, this is the greatest country on Earth. We must not default 
on our financial obligations. I truly believe my amendment will help 
prevent a Government shutdown. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment, and I hope that we will do it right now very quickly without 
further debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield the floor?
  Mrs. BOXER. I do yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. This amendment is acceptable to us on this side.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, this side also accepts the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2775) was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table. 

[[Page S 14125]]

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. President, and I thank my 
colleagues.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the rules, a Senator cannot reserve the 
right to object in calling off the quorum call.
  Mr. DORGAN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. An objection is heard. The clerk will continue 
to call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk continued to call the roll.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection? Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes, and further, 
that the Senator from North Dakota be allowed 5 minutes as in morning 
business for debate only.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The Senator has 5 minutes and the Senator from North Dakota 
has 5 minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Thomas pertaining to the introduction of S. 1268 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. McCain). The Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized for 5 minutes as in morning business.

                          ____________________